Current field of top players, other then Federer, weak? You might be surprised.

[federerfanatic]

I have read alot of threads were people say todays top players that Federer faces and beats are weak. The head to heads of those weak players vs the top players of the last now retired generation are interesting then:

Hewitt vs Sampras- Hewitt 5 Sampras 4
Hewitt vs Agassi- Hewitt 4 Agassi 4
Hewitt vs Rafter- Hewitt 3 Rafter 1
Hewitt vs Kafelnikov- Hewitt 7 Kafelnikov 1
Hewitt vs Kuerten- Hewitt 3 Kuerten 1


Roddick vs Sampras- Roddick 2 Sampras 1
Roddick vs Agassi- Roddick 1 Agassi 5
Roddick vs Kuerten- Roddick 1 Kuerten 1


Safin vs Sampras- Safin 4 Sampras 3
Safin vs Agassi- Safin 3 Agassi 3
Safin vs Rafter- Safin 0 Rafter 1
Safin vs Kafelnikov- Safin 2 Kafelnikov 2
Safin vs Kuerten- Safin 3 Kuerten 4


If you analyze when these matches took place there were just as many disadvantaged to the younger player being out of their prime as the older player. You will find matches were the older player even scored a win over the younger player at the disadvantage, but times the reverse was true.

For instance was 18 year old newcomer Marat Safin not at a big disavantage when he beat 28 year old Agassi in the first round of the French Open? Or was Hewitt supposed to beat Kuerten, when Kuerten was World #1, in Davis Cup, in Brazil, on clay, like he did in early 2001? Was young Roddick in 2001 and 2002, fighting just to crack the top 10 in the rankings, and only a couple U.S Open quarters as his slam success those 2 years, anymore in his prime then the aging Sampras whom he went 2-1 vs him in 2001 and 2002? Was young raw Roddick supposed to beat Kuerten at the 2001 Canadian Open when Kuerten was World #1 and would win the Masters in Cincinnati(beating Roddick in the first round to exact revenge)? Was Agassi really far past it in 2001 and 2002 when he spent parts of both years at #1, won his first Italian Open in 2002, contended at almost all the slams, but despite that went 2-3 vs Hewitt; the same Hewitt who also beat Agassi in 1998when Hewitt was only 16 years old, and Agassi was at the start of a comeback year he would end #6 in the world with 5 titles. Was Hewitt in 2000 where he went 2-2 vs Sampras, any closer to his prime in his first year in the top 10 and his first year he reached a slam semi, then Sampras who would win Wimbledon, reach the U.S Open finals, and end the year World #3? Hewitt vs Sampras on grass, took Sampras a full 3 sets in 1999, beat Sampras in 2000, and beat him again in 2001. Was 17 year old Hewitt supposed to beat highly ranked Kafelnikov both times they played in 1999?


I think these show the current field of top players is not weak as everybody wants, believes them to be. They are quite capable, but Federer makes them look weak.

 

[Swissv2]

Good thread. Sadly, people won't look at the past and only say players are weak because they lose to federer.

and they won't change their mind.

 

[federerfanatic]

I find it interesting people like Moose Malloy say fans today disrespect the past players. I find the opposite often. People seem to want to glorify the players of the past generation as much as possible and even make some of them out to be more then they are-for example the glorification of guys like Rafter or Krajicek into these sensational stud players, while players like Hewitt or Safin with similar achievements already in mid career are somehow easy competition to win over. Roddick being potrayed as just a one-dimensional server, while the far more one-dimensional serving machine Ivanisevic labeled as being an incredably tough opponent. Nadal being dismissed as just a clay courter, while players like Muster or Kuerten, who have done less
overall then 20 year old Nadal already has on other surfaces, were supposably formidable all surface players.

Everybody wants to long for the good old days, even if those days were only 10 years ago, and seem to remember those days as more then they ever really were. The funny thing is I remember the field being dissed throughout the 90s too, everybody wanted to dump on the field then just as they want to dump on the field now, and tear the players not named Federer to shreads.

So I find people want to be down on the current, and high on the past, even if it mainly only the recent past, and the period directly before now, not the more distant past. I suspect 10 years from now the Federer field will be glorified into something more then it ever was, while at the moment it is being unfairly potrayed as some competitive wasteland of misfits that Federer has at his disposal.

 

[35ft6]

I find it interesting people like Moose Malloy say fans today disrespect the past players. I find the opposite often.

It's like the old saying goes, the older I get, the better I was. In general, when people go on and on about the old players, they are only remembering and citing said players' greatest moments. That's what they generally remember. Compare that to players of today, where you see their matches more often, the good and the bad, and so are reminded they're only human. But the older players, after a while, they become myths, their crappy days forgot, dismissed, or in some way marginalized. The Safin who beat Sampras in the US Open final might have been the best player of all time for all I know, but he's not that player all the time. What Federer is doing today is astonishing. I've never seen a guy dominate so thoroughly for so long. Sampras, Becker, Lendl, and those dudes don't even really come close.

 

[Nick Irons]

What is the point ? Safin and Hewitt were born a decade after Pete and Andre ? And your comparing records in H2H ?

You're basically giving us a look at one side on the way up and one on the way out; Safin killing Andre wasn't even a big deal in 1998. My grandmother could have beat Andre at RG in 1998.

I personally am a fan of both Hewitt and Safin but showing their results against those guys is like comparing Jordan and Kobe H2H.

=

As far as Roger goes; yeah, it's pretty bizarre (and boring) watching him dominate. I still feel he is a giant among mortal men whereas the past greats played amongst other greats (It wasn't a matter of parity). There is a reason a player like Andre owns Blake and Roddick; he is a giant and they are mortals.

 

[dh003i]

This is a universal phenomenon.

Same thing with art, literature, music, culture.

People say we don't have the same level of cultural achievement as there was back in the day of Beethoven.

I say bull. We're comparing the very very best from the past, with the average of today. Of course today's going to look crappy. Look at some run of the mill Victorian crap that has just been reintroduced: really bad novels.

Maybe we don't have a Shakespeare in literature, or a Beethoven in music...but we have different strengths today, different mediums. Take the motion picture, for example; some really astounding achievements. And I'd be willing to bet that the next great cultural medium will be the video game.

Err, sorry, got off on a tangent. But the point is, this isn't specific to tennis.

People always look particularly fondly on the past, because of selection bias, and because it's when they grew up. Of course, the "golden age" of anything is *always* whenever the critic grew up.

 

[federerfanatic]

It's like the old saying goes, the older I get, the better I was. In general, when people go on and on about the old players, they are only remembering and citing said players' greatest moments. That's what they generally remember. Compare that to players of today, where you see their matches more often, the good and the bad, and so are reminded they're only human. But the older players, after a while, they become myths, their crappy days forgot, dismissed, or in some way marginalized. The Safin who beat Sampras in the US Open final might have been the best player of all time for all I know, but he's not that player all the time. What Federer is doing today is astonishing. I've never seen a guy dominate so thoroughly for so long. Sampras, Becker, Lendl, and those dudes don't even really come close.

That is an excellent accessment, that sums up my thoughts perfectly. Whenever one of us comes to the defense of the current field and point out limitations in the past generation as well, we are told we must be "too young" to have seen these players, and understand what we are talking about. Well I am fairly young you could say, but I started following tennis closely in 1990 and I have seen all of the noteable 90s players, and am very familiar with that whole previous decade of tennis. I can honestly say I find myself amazed at some of the statements given of the past generations players.

Only remembering and citing other players greatest moments is exactly what many seem to do in determing the standard of many of these players too. Krajicek's performance at Wimbledon 1996 is potrayed as the kind of talent he displayed and tennis he produced, on a substained basis, which is far from the truth for the player who compiled early round losses, even at Wimbledon, before that year so much so he was not seeded(16 seeds then) despite being the 13th highest ranked player in the field, and was seriously injury prone throughout his career. Ivanisevic's career performance at Wimbledon is potrayed as if it were the kind of tennis he brought to all surfaces and events outside of clay, which is not the case at all. Korda's late 97-early 98period is potrayed as how dangerous an opponent he always was, instead of the best 8 month period of tennis of his career by a long ways. Stich's 91 Wimbledon performance is potrayed as how formidable he was anytime he entered a fast court event, when he is another king of the compiling of early round losses, and was considered a mentaly fragile competitor, unpredictable performer, and massive underachiver throughout his career. The Agassi of 95 and 99 is potrayed as the kind of Agassi that Sampras and others of that era faced each year, when in fact the tennis Agassi that showed up half of that decade was even inferior to the "old Agassi" who Federer is belittled for bullying around in his next to final years. The Courier of 91-93 is potrayed as the Courier that Sampras and others faced until retirement which is again far from the truth. Michael Chang is potrayed as a supersized version of the Hewitt and Nadal counterpunching game, when in fact it is the other way around to those of us who have seen him in his prime, recall Hewitt of his prime a few years back and have watched Nadal play the last couple years.

On the other hand when it comes to todays player only the negative is reinforced. The good is quickly forgotten. People look at Roddick and Hewitt today and think this is the level they were always at. People forget how good and difficult an opponent Hewitt was in 2001-2002, and in 2004-2005 when he was practicaly unbeatable to a player not named Federer. People forget how tough an opponent Roddick was in 2003-2004 before he began to lose his confidence due to the Federer wall. People mock the inconsistency of Safin, yet his is no more inconsistent then many of the hot/cold supposed sensationaly tough top players of the 90s; and he has reached heights, such as the 2005 Australian Open semis where he so barely beat Federer, and the 2004 year end Masters semis where he still lost to Federer, that many of those players never reached even in their "hot" periods. People look at Nadal piling up quarterfinal defeats in almost every hard court event now and say he can only play on clay, and forget his 2 Masters titles on hard courts, his near defeat of Federer in a 3rd, on hard courts in 2005, his Wimbledon final and tough opposition to Federer in that final last year, and even his excellent match with Federer in the year end Masters semis last year. Roddick is labeled as only a serve by some, and thus deficient for somebody so highly ranked, yet if he were to play Ivanisevic in a match with no serves would spank Ivanisevic, who by these same people is cited as an incredably high standard top player of the time, and not refered to as being only a 1 dimensional player.

Todays grass court field is said to be incredably lacking to some, and even put up against the supposably incredable grass court fields of the 90s. Staying back as Nadal, or even Federer do, and having that kind of success is judged as being near impossible in the golden 90s. Grosjean reaching 2 straight Wimbledon semis, a player BTW who has been to the semis or better in slams on 3 different surfaces is said by some to reflect the very low standard of the current grass court field, and something that would never happen in the previous decades standard of grass court field. Yet my own memories flash back to 1996 and Richard Krajicek after his incredable defeat of Sampras in the quarters, defeating Jason Stoltenberg in the semis, and Malivia Washington in the final to win Wimbledon. Washington did not truly serve-volley his way to the final day of that Wimbledon, he stayed back almost all the time on his 2nd serve, and only "sometimes" serve-volleyed on his first serve. He did not come into net any more then Federer does, or Nadal did last year. He was an athletic baseliner who could certainly not hit groundstrokes or return serve to the level of Federer or Agassi, nor despite his athleticsm could he move the way Federer or Nadal can. Yet he was in a Wimbledon final in the golden 90s. The following year, 1997 Sampras defeated Todd Woodbridge in the semis and Cedric Pioline in the finals to win Wimbledon.

I certainly saw tennis in the 90s and to say I am amazed at some of the things I read would be a massive understatement. It will be interesting to see the accessments given of this decade of players, relative to how they are currently being torn down as much as possible, a decade from now.

 

[BlackSheep]

Federer is just on cloud nine at the moment and he won't be back down for a while.

 

[DashaandSafin]

You know, I thought you were a troll because of the whole deal with "The Gorilla" but you present a coherent argument here and I must say that I whole heartedly agree with you. Of course the players of today can't be great, they have no chance to because of Federer taking all the slams.

 

[federerfanatic]

What is the point ? Safin and Hewitt were born a decade after Pete and Andre ? And your comparing records in H2H ?

So the older player always has the big disadvantage? In 3 years from now will Federer be expected to lose to promising teenage players he plays before the match, and thought to be at a big disadvantage before he plays them?

In 1998 Sampras was still #1 and Wimbledon Champion. In 1999 Sampras was #3 but probably #1 without pre-U.S Open injury. In 2000 Sampras was #3 and only lost out on #1 since he played no tournaments from after the U.S Open(which he ended ranked #1)and the year end Championships, but ended the year Wimbledon Champion, Ericsson Champion, U.S Open finalist, Australian Open semifinalist, year end Masters semifinalist, clearly the best all around big event record of anybody that year. Hewitt in 1998 was a 17 year old who would spend the whole year outside the top 100. Hewitt in 1999was an 18 year old who would fail to crack the top 20 all year, and still had not reached his first 4th round of a slam. In 2000 Hewitt was a 19 year old who would get past the 4th round of a slam for the first time in the years final slam, with his U.S Open semifinal showing, and reach the top 10 for the first time-his highest ranking of the year being at #6.

Hewitt and Sampras played 6 of their 9 matches from 1998-2000.

When Safin beat Sampras twice in the summer of 2000 he was certainly not expected to do so. I recall Sampras being considered the heavy favorite in both matches. Safin was a promising up and comer who was starting to come into his own, and had a successful clay court season early in the year, and had broken into the lower half of the top 10 for the first time ever. Sampras was coming off the Wimbledon title in 2000, and still considered the player to beat on the mens tour on anything but clay. Safin and Pete both had great 2000s, Sampras having an exceptional record in big events that year and finishing #3 despite only playing 11 ranking tournaments which is the only thing that kept him from #1 at the end, and Safin was 20 to the 28/29 of Pete. Like I said Roger will not be "expected" to lose to a 20 year old very unproven up and comer when he is 28 going on 29 3 years from now, especialy if he is still playing up to #1 standards. Safin and Sampras played 3 times in 2000, 1 time in 1998, and 3 times after 2000.

Of course I am not saying Safin or Hewitt are greater players then Pete. I am saying their success against him certainly indicates they are much tougher opponents then they are given credit for since Federer has his way with them, even most times when they are having good years and playing well. They are not pushovers.

You're basically giving us a look at one side on the way up and one on the way out; Safin killing Andre wasn't even a big deal in 1998. My grandmother could have beat Andre at RG in 1998.

So was Agassi in the midst of yet another "comeback" year(is that ever a frequent word for him, and yet people even attempt to define when his prime was), had already won two tournaments and been runner up in the major Key Biscayne event to new World #1 Rios, and had already gotten into the top 20 in the world rankings by the time of his French Open 1st round match with Safin, on mainly just half a years results, as he came into the year outside the top 100 after almost no 1997 results. Safin was an 18 year old newcomer, who was ranked outside the top 100, when he played Agassi in that first round match of the French Open.

As far as Roger goes; yeah, it's pretty bizarre (and boring) watching him dominate. I still feel he is a giant among mortal men whereas the past greats played amongst other greats (It wasn't a matter of parity). There is a reason a player like Andre owns Blake and Roddick; he is a giant and they are mortals.

Agassi's head to head with Roddick is impressive, but Blake is not one of the chief opponents of Federer and never has been, and his stay in the top 5 will prove to be a brief one. He is as much as rival to Federer as brief World #4 Jonas Bjorkman was to Sampras.

By the past greats playing amongst other greats did you mean back when during Sampras's 6 year run as years end #1, you had such giants as Stich, Rios, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Moya, Korda, Chang, and Ivanisevic each reach #1 or #2 in the world at some point? Sounds like a real battle of the the true greats to me when Agassi was off on one of his peaks and valleys(eg-most of the time).

Federer is a giant among mortal men in the same way Sampras was. That is what greats do.

 

[federerfanatic]

You know, I thought you were a troll because of the whole deal with "The Gorilla" but you present a coherent argument here and I must say that I whole heartedly agree with you. Of course the players of today can't be great, they have no chance to because of Federer taking all the slams.

Thank you, I just wanted to state some of the misconceptions I believe exist of the past generation and the current one. That is my feeling too, the other players of today dont have much chance to be great as long as Federer is winning, and the only way they can become greater is for Federer to win less and become less great himself, which makes it a circular argument with no fair solution to. Alot of the best of the top players of other eras were 3-5 years older or younger then that eras dominant player and were able to gain alot of their titles before or after. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, are all much closer in age to Federer then that, while the clearly younger ones it is too soon to tell on most although Nadal is off to a good start.

As for "The Gorilla" we obviously dont see eye to eye on much, but I will try to lay off the harassment in the future.

 

[Nick Irons]

Federer is a giant among mortal men in the same way Sampras was. That is what greats do.

Of course he is. Anyone that thinks that is not the case is insane

However ...

Anyone that would suggest that Federer would utterly dominate a field of Mac's, Connors, Agassi's, Borg's or Lendl's (Insert great champion) shows not only ignorance but complete disrespect of the champions before him (and probably his fanboy age)

I'm not sure why Safin or Hewitt warrant mention in the same sentence as Agassi/Pete. They fall more into the Rafter batch.

Federer would be a giant among giants; but you'd bet your ass he wouldn't have 10 right now.

 

[federerfanatic]

Of course he is. Anyone that thinks that is not the case is insane

However ...

Anyone that would suggest that Federer would utterly dominate a field of Mac's, Connors, Agassi's, Borg's or Lendl's (Insert great champion) shows not only ignorance but complete disrespect of the champions before him (and probably his fanboy age)

I'm not sure why Safin or Hewitt warrant mention in the same sentence as Agassi/Pete. They fall more into the Rafter batch.

Federer would be a giant among giants; but you'd bet your ass he wouldn't have 10 right now.

First of all this thread is mainly referring to the wrongful thrashing of the current field by many that I sense, and also the myths about the vaunted generation of playes directly before this one which ended the 90s. The previous generation is not the generation that had McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendl, all at once, so that would be a different argument altogether. For the record I dont deny that particular generation of players is the strongest one to be since that generation existed since then. Although since Borg was about ready to take early retirement when Lendl emerged among the top group for the first time the 4 were only briefly together, mostly it was 3 of them but still an incredable group.

Even in that incredable generation of players though you cannot say total domination is impossible. McEnroe's 82-3 record in 1984 proves that. Borg's 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles proves this, and 3 consecutive years of the French-Wimbledon double proves this. Connors record consecutive weeks at #1 proves this. Lendl's 8 straight U.S Open finals proves this, and who knows how many U.S Open titles this could have been without his problem with "nerves" in big finals in his early contender days. I dont see how you can gaurantee what Federer could or could not do in this field, since each of the players has still proven total domination is possible, as each attained for either a period of time, or an event of preference or extreme aptitude, even in such a great field.

McEnroe not extending that dominance further could be put down to a lack of commitment to doing so, and off court ordeals getting in the way after 1984. Borg's inability to handle the environment of the U.S Open, and starting in 1978 his game not translating as well to hard courts as either clay or grass could be reasoned as limiting his dominance from being ever more then it was for a number of years. Lendl's unnatural grass court game during his period of dominance, and his inability to conquer his nerves in the semis and finals of slams vs key rivals for several of his early years as a major contender, could be what prevented him from even more incredable period of dominance then he was able to have. Federer-like dominance is not impossible even in that field of super-greats. Much more difficult yes, a bigger challenge then Fed has faced yes, able to deem undoable no.

 

[dh003i]

Yea, the point isn't to say Federer would completely dominate Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Sampras...the point is only to say that his competition isn't weak, and you can't use that to say he's not as good as any of the aforementioned.

 

[Nick Irons]

Yea, the point isn't to say Federer would completely dominate Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Sampras...the point is only to say that his competition isn't weak, and you can't use that to say he's not as good as any of the aforementioned.

Nooooooooooooooo

Federers competetion is weak. As weak as the *****es Jimbo and John used to spank; as weak as Pete and Andre spanked around, as weak as Ivan punkd

Federer lacks a rival; the game is boring with a dynasty. It'd be much funner with some drama.

Federer is a king and is playing in an era where he is the only one around

 

[!Tym]

I'm not bashing the current generation AT ALL. What I am saying and I think what people mean by disrespecting the old generation's ability, is that it's not correct to say that today's generation is necessarily better. We DON'T know that as fact, and the Gene Mayer incident is a GLARING example that players from past generations would be *competitive* today, which is far from glorifying the past generation as you're suggesting, it's trying to be FAIR and PC to BOTH generations. For every player who says newer is better, there's a Don Budge who was adamant to his death that the best guys from his day could and would still be top players today.

The fact is that every inter-generational battle between the in and the out generations has at least shown more than a fair share of at least REASONABLY competitive matches, with some victories going either way.

The fact is you CAN'T compare FAIRLY scores from guys who are old to guys who are young. There's injuries to factor in, burn out to factor in, other priorities in life other than just tennis to factor in, not being familiar enough with being around/practicing with each other for years as guys from the same generation grow up doing, youth and inexperience yet also being able to play without fear because you're young and have nothing to lose whereas the old "name" has a lot more to lose "rep" wise than the young guy (see Safin vs. Agassi at the French when he burst onto the scene for example), etc.

BUT, the FACT is that as you're *hard evidence* points out, DESPITE all these *legitimate* variables, once again, the old generation has proven itself *reasonably* competitve with the upcoming generation. That's what Budge was saying till his death, and that was his point. I personally just to be fair and PC will give the old generation the benefit of the doubt as being relatively "up there" with today's best. This is NOT a determination of who is better or glorifying the past, it's saying that in my opinion the past top players would be able to hold their own with today's best. That's it, that's all, nothing more, nothing less. And this IS taking into account their crumb-sucking "worst days of their life" in as well as their glorious best days. EVERY top player has those except seemingly Federer...but then again, Federer hasn't ripped out his MCL yet like Chang, he hasn't had his spine abandon him like Lendl, he hasn't had the "dead arm" that plagued Courier for the rest of his career, that he couldn't get rid of no matter what he tried, he hasn't had the pleasure yet of "trying out" the neverending string of injuries of a Krajicek, or getting his knee obliterated by a drunk driver like Muster, or got stabbed in the back like Seles, nor has he the outside interests of the more "worldly" Stich (and truthly to me more interesting to me as a person than Federer, since to me I really don't hold tennis and tennis records as being the most important and admirable thing in the world like guys like Sampras and Federer seem to/seemed to), he didn't have the "psychological" issues that haunted Agassi from his "unbalanced" childhood and "we lived off tips," etc.

Also, with regards to the 4-minute mile landmark? The point for me is that it would NOT take long AT ALL for yesterday's past to adjust to today's "modern" game. Give them modern technology, and you'll see how quickly the top talents of the oldy moldy technology would adapt with their TOP SHELF, *innate* hand-eye coordination. I had never played with former pros before, then did, it took me four times of hitting casually, before I "adjusted" to the little "extra" in their game. Why? Because I did not focus on tennis growing up, started very late, was literally poverty poor, and my parents valued "more important" things in life, and mentally I was an abomination (just am NOT cut out for this sport, or at least, not then, had too much stress going on in life); BUT "apparently" now I found out I had the natural talent and athleticism (two cousins were Olympic hopefuls, one still is, and might well take gold). Again, I adjusted in just a few sessions at a time when I was not even playing much at all or focusing on the game at all. Prior, the best "standard" of players I'd been playing agianst had been national and sectionally ranked juniors and collegiate players and open players. Still pretty good players, but first time out against former pros and you think oh, my gosh, this guy's gonna be for another planet...no not quite. Still everyone has "nice" form after awhile. The difference is very subtle but it makes a big difference in play. What would have been a winner before, suddenly comes back. It took me four times out to make the MENTAL adjustment. Your mind adapts THAT quickly IF you have the *natural* ability. Things like hand-eye coordination are innate. In fact, I specifically, remembering holding back the fourth time out because within the first ten minutes, I knew I was "on" and just seeing things and had mentally made the adjustment to the new level. I felt bad for the guy because I was winning almost all the points, and I had "upset" the relationship balance/hierarchy (i.e. before, the situation had been reveresed, with me always feeling one step behind).

Again, that's just me. But, because I took an unusual path in tennis, I have a lot of perspective that the normal, I just train at an academy to get good player, doesn't "understand" because they've never been put in a position where they can understand anything they haven't been fed...i.e. believing that unless you have the money to fork out minimum $45 an hour for private lessons like all the time you'll never be able to get "pro looking" form. It's scary to me how many people actually believe this for example. It's just not true. The little things, the refinement, etc. are BOUGHT with lessons and an academy, but it is NOT rocket science folks. You either have some ability or you don't. That's why gusy like Jon Lovitz and Elton John can take all the lessons they want and can afford, and yet still remain a hack, their strokes NO MATTER WHAT THEY TRY TO BUY, still...inevitably...look like that of a hack's. Why is that? Because there's a cap on their *natural* fluency...whereas Joe Morgan, baseball hall of famer, picked up the game late, and practically overnight by comparison became a nationally ranked senior player...nuff said.

Naturaly fluency in something means a capacity to adapt. What academies do is throw people into the fire with a lot of other talented people where you're natural fluency either proves itself to sink or float, but what a coach actually tells you? That is NOT rocket science. What do you need a baby sitter to tell you to go run sprints or ten miles a day like Muster so you never ever get tired on the court even if it's 100 degrees? NO. Of course, it helps, and likely no one not even Muster would make it without that *support* group around him...but lo and behold who was his mainstay "coach"/guru/his everything? Ronnie Leitgeb a freaking former journalist who approached Muster with ZERO tennis experience...doh, well, that "specialist" relationship certainly never did work out for Muster unfortunately. However, of course, I'm speaking purely from a hypothetical, *theoretical* level/perspective here.

And from a theoretical level, that says that if you have the natural ability you will QUICKLY know if you can adapt or not. Case in point Stich who wasn't even the best junior, and quit tennis after the juniors and NEVER thought about going pro, BUT his parents and "handlers" all said, no way, you HAVE to try it for at least a year, FOR US, you're just toooo talented to at least not try. And he finally said, fine alright, I'll try it one year just to see then go back/to college and resume a normal life.

Then, what happened? He "surprised" himself. Within one year, he had sky rocketed up the rankings, and practically next thing you know, he said he found himself 7 in the world, and killing Becker at Wimbledon...now who woulda thunk? Certainly not Stich who AGAIN was NOT some superman junior player like Edberg. What Stich was, however, was a guy who also played for the national junior soccer team and did not really devote himself to tennis nor love it...he was just naturally gifted at it.

Still, look at how QUICKLY he adjusted to the "higher standard" of the big boys. He took tennis seriously for one year, and like overnight he became a top tenner practically. How is that? INNATE ABILITY. ELITE TALENT.

Like I said, THIS is why I believe that the old timers would be able to "hang" with today's best. Elite talent adjusts VERY quickly (see guys like Rich Fralnkin and Evan Tanner becoming world class fighters by training in their backyards and learning from video tape vs. life-long traditional martial artists or more "qualified" amateur wrestlers, former pro boxers, etc. Likewise, tennis is not rocket science, it's JUST A GAME, and yes there are significant technical/technological/biomechanical/training innovations etc. in EVERY sport, but again I truly believe you take the elite talents from every generation and they would ALL be able to *assimilate* just fine with each other and all give each other more than competitive matches assuming all elite talents were at their best and put on a level playing field with regards to all the modern "advantages" and perks of say...oh...graphite.

 

[federerfanatic]

I'm not bashing the current generation AT ALL. What I am saying and I think what people mean by disrespecting the old generation's ability, is that it's not correct to say that today's generation is necessarily better. We DON'T know that as fact, and the Gene Mayer incident is a GLARING example that players from past generations would be *competitive* today, which is far from glorifying the past generation as you're suggesting, it's trying to be FAIR and PC to BOTH generations. For every player who says newer is better, there's a Don Budge who was adamant to his death that the best guys from his day could and would still be top players today.

I dont know whether you bash the current generation or not, I was referring to what I hear from many people I know, or that I have read or heard before, and that I read from alot of posters on here. People going out of their way to slam the current field, especialy the top group of players not named Federer, and go out of their way to look for ways to diminish them and how lacking they are compared to supposably unbelievable generation of players just before this one. Reading something like Nadal's making the Wimbledon final playing from the baseline shows how inferior the current field must be, when Washington who I have seen play many times, and who I can safely state cant carry Nadal's jock strap, did the same thing in 1996 coming to net no more then Nadal did at Wimbledon last year. Reading how Safin is too inconsistent to be regarded as a serious top player of this generation, when Krajicek and Stich who piled up early round losses in the biggest events to nobodies in their primes as if they were candy, interspersed with big runs as well, and who like Safin yo-yoed in the rankings, are lauded as examples of the incredably tough field of top players back then.

The fact is that every inter-generational battle between the in and the out generations has at least shown more than a fair share of at least REASONABLY competitive matches, with some victories going either way.

Which wouldnt be the case at all if the current generation not named Federer were simply a hopeless group of pushovers and the previous generation was this phenomenal minefield of champions; which is how alot of people describe the two generations of players as. If this were truly the case, you would have seen a most unusual extremely one sided group of matches, in the previous generations favor, in those inter-generational battles, yet that doesnt exist as I have shown. From your statement, it is very much in keeping with what inter-generational battles typicaly have produced.

The fact is you CAN'T compare FAIRLY scores from guys who are old to guys who are young. There's injuries to factor in, burn out to factor in, other priorities in life other than just tennis to factor in, not being familiar enough with being around/practicing with each other for years as guys from the same generation grow up doing, youth and inexperience yet also being able to play without fear because you're young and have nothing to lose whereas the old "name" has a lot more to lose "rep" wise than the young guy (see Safin vs. Agassi at the French when he burst onto the scene for example), etc.

Those are good points, but you know I could make the argument the other way. The older guy in alot of cases is the one with nothing to lose, the young guy has his reputation at stake as he does not want a loss to that "older guy" on his record. Federer for example definitely had that weight of the world on his shoulders in that regard, playing Agassi who in reality had "absolutely nothing to lose", as huge underdog playing Federer in both the 2004 and 2005 U.S Opens, not to mention Fed having one of the most hostile environments I have seen a player have to play in. Sampras also in reality had "nothing to lose" at the 2001 and 2002 U.S Opens since everybody had counted him out. Ivanisevic certainly had "nothing to lose" at Wimbledon 2001.

Also if the players you point out were "burnt out" how come many of those matches I pointed out were when those old generation player was still at the very top, and some of them were having some of the best results of their career(Rafter and Kafelnikov imparticular)at the time they played and often lost to those younger generation of players.

but then again, Federer hasn't ripped out his MCL yet like Chang, he hasn't had his spine abandon him like Lendl, he hasn't had the "dead arm" that plagued Courier for the rest of his career, that he couldn't get rid of no matter what he tried, he hasn't had the pleasure yet of "trying out" the neverending string of injuries of a Krajicek, or getting his knee obliterated by a drunk driver like Muster, or got stabbed in the back like Seles, nor has he the outside interests of the more "worldly" Stich (and truthly to me more interesting to me as a person than Federer, since to me I really don't hold tennis and tennis records as being the most important and admirable thing in the world like guys like Sampras and Federer seem to/seemed to), he didn't have the "psychological" issues that haunted Agassi from his "unbalanced" childhood and "we lived off tips," etc.

Of course luck plays a role in a players greatness. Some are lucky to be born with more talent then somebody else, some are lucky to be born taller or more physicaly developed, some are either lucky or unlucky to be born with a parent who can or cant coach legitimately and insist on being the coach, some are lucky to have received more national funding or sponsorship growing up to make it easier. Players like Federer and Sampras have made almost all the right decisions, had almost the perfect upbringing to not saddle them with any of those obstacles or demons to focusing solely on tennis, have had almost the best luck as far as injuries and health, and have mantained their single minded resolve to be the best. Either things that were a certain amount of luck, and that were of their own choosing, almost all worked out near perfectly much moreso then almost any other player, hence the dominance and GOAT status for both.

One could say the current generation has had their share of bad luck as far as injuries, and off field diversions. What might Ferrero's career may have been had he not dealt with so many injuries after his career best 2003 season, featuring a French Open title, clay court specialist run to the U.S Open final, and battling for the year end #1 ranking, which followed a steady progress in his career up to that point. What might Safin's career have been had he not dealt with so many injuries. How well might Hewitt still be playing if he had not fallen in love and found more balance in his life. Although I am not sure which generation he falls under, how different might Phillipousis's career have been, probably a fair number of those years under both the previous and current generation without a never ending sequence of knee problems.

 

[fastdunn]

I am not sure if Safin and Hewitt can be considered "current" top players.

The current top 10 players, Federer often plays at later rounds,
except Fed himself and Nadal are his currnet main competitions.
I'm sure they will be replaced by new young players within 2007.

 

[federerfanatic]

I am not sure if Safin and Hewitt can be considered "current" top players.

The current top 10 players, Federer often plays at later rounds,
except Fed himself and Nadal are his currnet main competitions.
I'm sure they will be replaced by new young players within 2007.

Ok good point. However each of Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Ivanisevic, or Kafelnikov were not always "current top players" during the 90s either. They all had periods of dropping out of top 10 or not contending seriously. Rafter was not even a contender or even a top 10 player until 1997. Courier was not much of a contender after 1993, and only once briefly re-entered the top 10 late in 1995 until mid 1996 once he first dropped out in 1994. Except for his final appearance as a low seed at Wimbledon 1998, and then his miracelous 2001 Wimbledon win, Ivanisevic was not contending or a top 10 player after 1996. Agassi was not a "current top player" at all in 1993 or 1997, or even 1998 based on his slam results. Kafelnikov did not emerge in the top 10 until 1995, and dropped out again in 1998 for a bit.

Like you I also expect Davydenko, Ljubicic, and Blake to be replaced in the top 10 by some of the younger more promising talents like Murray, Gasquet, Djokovic, and possably Bhagdatis and/or Berdych. I think Roddick will stay in the top 5 and could be anywhere from #2-#5 at years end. Nadal could drop from #2 but no way will he drop out of the top 5 this year. I think Haas, Gonzalez, and Youzhny have a chance to be top 10 this year with the way they are playing early in the year. I think Robredo has a good shot of staying in the top 10 but not moving into the top 5. I am not sure on Nalbandian, I think he probably belongs in the top 10 but he seems to be struggling at the moment. I would not count out Hewitt making it back in the top 10, I think he has some really good tennis left in him and was unlucky to draw red hot Gonzalez in Australia, whom he gave a closer match then any of Blake, Nadal, or Haas, in the next 3 rounds did.